Laserfiche WebLink
I <br />Igl <br />403 <br />been approved by the State Highway Department, subject to approval of the pending <br />Supplemental Memorandum of Agreement for additional funds. It is the Engineeris <br />recommendation that the City Manager be authorized to advertise for bids immediately <br />on this project. <br />Due to the liability which might be incurred by the City in formally approving any <br />rearrangement which would permit parking of trailers across the walkway, parking and <br />traffic lanes, it is our recommendation that the streets be constructed to a width <br />of 60 feet between curbs, as per plans and specifications and to conform to the rest <br />I <br />of Broadway. Any liability incurred by such parking of vehicles would then be the <br />responsibility of the owner and/or driver of the vehicle, and not that of the City. <br />Councilman Jones questioned Mr. Jain in regard to other meetings with the warehouse <br />people. Mr. Jain replied that he had not had any further meetings because he knew <br />the feelings of the Council before taking any further action. He stated that the <br />State had challenged the 60, street as they had given approval for a 641 street. <br />City Engineer explained that the street on either end of the proposed widening was <br />60, wide. Councilman Jones moved acceptance of the City Engineer's report and author- <br />ized the City Manager to advertise for bids, seconded by Councilman Granger. Mayor <br />Herkner stated that he had gone out in the field and discussed this matter at some <br />length to the end that there was a possibility of extending the dock 61 within his <br />building. City Engineer Jain stated that if he still wants to extend the dock and <br />assume the liability he would have no'objections, however, it would not improve the <br />situation to any great extent. <br />After further discussion regarding a 61 dock and a 23+ dock, City Attorney Currie <br />stated that they should let them work out their own problems and then the City would <br />not be liable. Motion carried. <br />CITY ENGINEER REGARDING CANAVESE RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS, 14t 15, and 16, OAKWOOD PARK, <br />between Roble Avenue and Oakwood Drive south of Carlos Avenue. In his letter, <br />Mr. Jain stated that the Planning Commission, at its meeting of July 26, 1955s <br />approved a tentative map subject to the following: <br />1- 30 -foot pavement•between curbs. <br />2. No sidewalks required. <br />3. 40 -foot radius to be provided on cul de sac. <br />L�.. Drainage, water and sewer facilities to be approved by the City Engineer. <br />City Engineer Jain offered the following comments and recommendations.: <br />1. Roble Avenue, from which this cul de sac extends, is 1,000 feet in ,length, and <br />is served by only a 2 -inch and 1 2 inch water main. Action by the Council on <br />August 1, 1955, required that the developer of Glenfair Subdivision at the end of <br />Roble Avenue should pay 25/ of the cost of a 6 -inch water main in the present Roble <br />Avenue, the City to pay the remaining 75%- It is our opinion that the Canavese Sub- <br />division should pay its share of this water main also, or at least share the 25% with <br />Glenfair Subdivision, <br />2. The developer of Glenfair Subdivision is being required to construct standard <br />34 -foot pavement and standard sidewalks, and all other improvements required by the <br />Subdivision Ordinance, <br />3. The tentative plan indicates that the lots, as proposed to be subdivided, are <br />sufficiently large to provide full 34 -foot pavement, 5 -foot sidewalks, and 45 -foot <br />radius turnaround as required in similar small cul de sac subdivisions. <br />The Engineer Department feel that the Canavese Subdivision should be treated in the <br />same manner as other subdivisions of this type, with the requirement for complete <br />plans and specifications, and construction of improvements as required by the Sub- <br />division Ordinance. <br />Councilman Spillers was of the opinion that this should be set for a study meeting. <br />City Engineer Jain stated that Mr. Eichler was in the audience when the Planning <br />Commission considered the matter. In a similar case, the Planning Commission had <br />